Legislature(2009 - 2010)
04/16/2010 10:47 AM House FIN
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to and increasing the number of
members of the House of Representatives to forty-eight
and the number of members of the senate to twenty-
four.
7:26:23 PM
SENATOR DONALD OLSON, SPONSOR, reviewed the legislation.
The Alaska legislature had been expanded several times in
the past. In 1913 the first territorial legislature was
established with 8 senators and 16 representatives. Then,
in 1942, the legislature was increased to 12 senators and
24 representatives. In 1959, with the ratification of the
state constitution, the legislature was increased to 20
senators and 40 representatives. In the 50 years since, the
size of the legislature had remained unchanged. Alaska had
the smallest bicameral legislature in the nation. The
population of the state had tripled since statehood, and
the increase had been disproportionate, favoring large
urban areas over smaller rural communities. Without an
increase in the size of the legislature, the 2010 Census
could be reconciled with Article 6, Section 6 of the state
constitution, which mandated the existence of continuous
compact and socioeconomic districts, or the federal mandate
under the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965. He noted that in
the last 46 years, 29 states had changed the size of their
legislative body and that 9 of those states, with
populations comparable to Alaska, had a legislature with
134 members.
7:29:44 PM
DAVID GREY, STAFF, SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN, referred to the
handout "Population Trend for Election Districts in 2010",
(copy on file). The population distributions for 2010 were
calculated based on the Department of Labor (DOL)
estimations from 2008. He noted that DOL used the permanent
fund application numbers as the basis for the projections,
but that the 2010 Census would provide more valid numbers.
He noted that in crafting the handout he had included the
numbers from House Joint Resolution 38, which recommended
and increase in the house to 44 members. The handout
illustrated the numbers applying the increase of 44
members, vs. 46, vs. 48. He pointed out to the committee
the fourth column of numbers labeled "Difference from
Average", which calculated the numbers above or below the
ideal average for the districts. He noted that in the
southeastern and rural areas of the state the numbers were
below average, where as in the Mat-Su and Anchorages areas
the numbers were high. The Supreme Court had allowed for a
plus or minus 5 percent in the rural districts, but had
expected more accurate numbers in calculating urban areas.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the plus or minus 5 percent would
need to be reconciled in a corresponding district. Mr. Grey
believed so.
Mr. Grey continued that in urban areas additional votes
were easily available, but rural districts with smaller
populations did not have the same ability.
7:35:00 PM
Representative Foster spoke in support of the legislation.
He related that in urban areas the average citizen could
walk door to door to garner support. He noted that when the
number of rural villages under the representation of one
legislator was increased, it became more difficult for the
average person to campaign. The number of villages
represented by one legislator could be as high as 30, with
great distance between communities, which would require air
travel, and necessitate a substantial campaign budget. He
thought that the legislation would allow for the average
person to represent in the legislature rather than only the
affluent.
Senator Olson responded that financial limitations had kept
representatives of many rural villages form visiting and
addressing the needs of small communities. This had lead to
a feeling of disenfranchisement, and cynicism toward the
legislature.
7:37:14 PM
Representative Gara commented that urban areas also
struggle with the unavailability of legislators. As
districts had grown, people had less contact with their
legislators. He thought that something needed to be done to
address the increase in population.
Representative Doogan asked about the increase of house
members, and how the number had been determined. Mr. Grey
stated that the number was chosen (48) to see if the number
would keep each district "hold harmless". The number was
chosen in an attempt to preserve the status quo.
Senator Olson stated that the number took into
consideration the division of populations in areas where
district boundaries had been established ten years ago,
and factored in the western and south central areas;
Kodiak, the Kenai Peninsula, down toward Yakutat, and into
southeast.
7:40:06 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas appreciated the intent of the
legislation. He listed several reasons for flux in the
state's population in the past and suggested that job
creation could help keep people in the state. He relayed
that the numbers on the handout reveal that the districts
he represented were the most affected by the issue.
Senator Olson shared that there were legislators serving on
the committee that might not be back next year without the
passage of the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
7:43:00 PM
Co-Chair Hawker discussed the fiscal notes number one and
two. FN2 reflected the $1500 ballot charge to put the
resolution on the ballot for public vote. He noted the
technical error on FN2; the $1500 was not reflected in the
required appropriation column, and needed to be corrected.
Co-Chair Hawker stated that FN1 reflected the estimated
$4,470,000 cost of 12 new legislators, additional staff,
support time, attorney fees, travel, contractual allowance
supplies, and capital outlay. He noted that the legislature
was budgeted at $60 million per year, which would increase
if 12 more legislators were added. He stated that the full
cost was yet unknown. He wondered where room would be found
for 12 more legislators and 35 staff members in the capital
building. He suggested that the fiscal note be
indeterminate for "land and structures" as well as
miscellaneous, and that it be made clear to the public that
the cost of implementing the legislation was yet unknown.
7:46:37 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the term "indeterminate" would
be an accurate representation for the public.
Representative Joule agreed that the cost of the
legislation was indeterminate. He countered that the loss
of the voices of residents living in underrepresented areas
could not be measured monetarily.
Co-Chair Hawker voiced support for the legislation.
Senator Olson believed that the decision was not taken
lightly and that the will of the people would be revealed
by a vote.
Representative Salmon asked when the increase in the number
of legislators would go into effect.
7:49:03 PM
Mr. Grey replied that the reapportionment board would not
receive the 2010 Census numbers until March 2011.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the resolution did not change
the constitution, it only changed the math.
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to report SJR 21 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SJR 21 was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and attached new fiscal impact note by the
Office of the Governor and new indeterminate note by the
Legislative Affairs Agency.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|